Workers at a nuclear-waste site in Washington state were recently told to hunker down in place after a tunnel in the nuclear finishing plant collapsed, news sources reported yesterday (May 9).

Workers at the Hanford nuclear site were told to either evacuate or shelter in place, and to avoid eating or drinking anything after the tunnel collapsed, according to the Yakima Herald. The U.S. Department of Energy activated an Emergency Operations Center for dealing with the disaster.

The tunnel was part of the plutonium and uranium extraction facility (PUREX) said to be holding a lot of radioactive waste, including railway cars used to carry spent nuclear fuel rods, news agency AFP reported. At least some of the radioactive waste at the Hanford facility contains radioactive plutonium and uranium, according to the DOE, although at least some of it is also radioactive "sludge" composed of a mixture of radioactive substances. Right now, authorities have not revealed whether radioactive substances have been released or whether people have been exposed any of these contaminants.

But if people were indeed exposed to the radioactive waste containing plutonium and uranium, what health risks would they face? And how can people minimize their risk of exposure?

Radioactive plutonium and uraniumAll radioactive material, as it decays, can cause harm. As unstable radioactive isotopes, or versions of an element with different molecular weights, decay into slightly more stable versions, they release energy. This extra energy can either directly kill cells or damage a cell's DNA, fueling mutations that may eventually lead to cancer.

Plutonium, one of the radioactive substances that may be present at the Hanford site, has a half-life of 24,000 years, meaning that's how long it takes for half of the material to decay into more stable substances. As such, it sticks around in the environment, and in the body, for a long time.

Plutonium exposure can be very deadly for living creatures. A 2011 study in the journal Nature Chemical Biology found that rat adrenal-gland cells ferried plutonium into the cells; the plutonium entered the body's cells largely by taking the natural place of iron on receptors. That study found that plutonium also can linger preferentially in the liver and blood cells, leaching alpha radiation (two protons and neutrons bound together). When inhaled, plutonium can also cause lung cancer.

However, because the human body still slightly prefers iron to plutonium for its biological processes, that preference could potentially provide avenues for treating plutonium exposure, by flooding such receptors and preventing plutonium from being taken in by the cells, the study authors noted.

In addition, a 2005 study in the journal Current Medicinal Chemistry found that there are some short-term treatments for plutonium exposure. Studies in the 1960s and 1970s identified agents, such as Diethylenetriaminepentaacetic, which can help the body remove plutonium faster. Other drugs, such as ones used to treat iron-processing disorders such as beta-thalassemia, or bone-strengthening drugs that treat osteoporosis, may also be useful for plutonium exposure, the study found.

Uranium, another radioactive element that may be present at dangerous concentrations in the PUREX tunnel, also can have harmful effects on human health. Uranium isotopes have half-lives ranging from 4.5 billion years to 25,000 years.

The biggest health risk people face after being exposed to uranium is kidney damage, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. People exposed to uranium may also experience lung problems, such as scar tissue (fibrosis) or emphysema (large air sacs in the lungs). At high doses, uranium can directly cause kidneys and lungs to fail, according to the CDC. However, studies have found that people who drink well water containing low doses of uranium do not show any marked changes in kidney function.

Like plutonium, uranium emits alpha radiation. Uranium may also decay into radon, which has been tied to an increased cancer risk in several studies, particularly in miners who are exposed to higher levels of the toxin.

It's not clear whether there are other radioactive substances in the Hanford site area, but radioactive forms of iodine and cesium can also cause problems such as thyroid cancer, Live Science previously reported.

Radiation sicknessOverall, radiation from any source increases the risk of cancer, and the cancer risk increases with higher exposures. Extremely high doses of radioactive waste can induce a condition known as radiation sickness, in which the gastrointestinal tract literally bleeds and sloughs off its lining. During the Chernobyl nuclear disaster, 28 emergency workers died directly from radiation poisoning in the three months after the disaster, and rates of cancer in nearby populations increased four to 10 years after the disaster, Live Science reported.

However, exposures in more recent nuclear disasters, such as the nuclear meltdown at the Fukushima Daiichi plant, have not typically been high enough to show highly elevated rates of cancer. For instance, a Japanese worker who was exposed to 10 rem (100 millisievert, or mSv), a measurement of radiation, may face a lifetime cancer risk that is elevated by half a percent, Kathryn Higley, director of the Oregon State University Department of Nuclear Engineering and Radiation Health Physics, previously told Live Science. That radiation dose amounts to the levels received with about five CT scans. Most people in the United States receive 0.3 rem (3 mSv) of radiation each year from natural sources, such as the sun, Live Science previously reported.

In addition, studies have found lower rates of cancer in nuclear plant workers than in the general population, likely because these workers tend to be healthier than the people in the nearby population, according to a 2004 study in the French journal Revue Epidemiological Sante Publique. Therefore, untangling a slightly elevated risk of cancer due to radiation exposure from a slightly lower risk due to healthier habits could be tricky, the study noted.

The Department of Energy needs to prioritize the clean-up of nuclear waste.

17 May 2017

The United States is still fighting the cold war. Thousands of its citizens had to take shelter last week because of the threat of radiation from nuclear weapons. But the opponent is no longer the Soviet Union. The enemy now is the legacy of an arms race and decades of government indifference to the mess that has been left behind.

On 9 May, the roof collapsed in a tunnel that houses highly radioactive waste at the US Department of Energy’s sprawling Hanford site in Washington state. The tunnel is one of a pair that together shield 36 radioactive railway carriages, once used to carry nuclear fuel for reprocessing to plutonium. Radiation monitors showed no signs of airborne contamination after the collapse, so workers at the site were released and the hole was filled with fresh soil.

The incident is yet another alarming reminder of the risks posed by pollution at nuclear-weapons facilities in the United States and around the world. It could have been much worse. And without serious and sustained efforts to clean up these ageing facilities, one day it will be.

In August 2015, an independent panel of academics placed the Hanford tunnels on a list of high-priority dangers at the site, which spreads for more than 1,500 square kilometres along the Columbia River. The interim report, by the Consortium for Risk Evaluation with Stakeholder Participation (CRESP), said that the oldest tunnel — built in 1956 and covered with soil nearly 2.5 metres deep — could collapse and release radiation during an earthquake. The energy department is still investigating last week’s breach, but the 6-metre section that gave way may have succumbed to little more than old age.

The energy department has spent more than US$164 billion cleaning up its nuclear-waste sites since 1989. But it will be many decades before the work is complete. Each year, the agency spends more money just to maintain old infrastructure and ensure workers are safe.

Science might yet offer more efficient and economic solutions. Whereas Congress and previous administrations have been willing to spend money to maintain — or upgrade — the nuclear weapons themselves, there is less interest in paying to clean up after them. US President Donald Trump is no different. His administration’s initial 2018 budget outline would boost funding for the environmental clean-up of nuclear waste by around $300 million, to $6.5 billion. But the National Nuclear Security Administration, which runs the energy department’s weapons programme, would fare better with an increase of $1.4 billion, or 11%.

Money is not the only problem. For more than a decade, organizations such as the US National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine have been raising questions about the regulatory challenges that impede clean-up. For instance, the energy department’s nuclear waste is still classified by where it comes from, rather than by its actual radiological risk. This often increases clean-up costs, and so heightens danger in a budget-constrained world. Nor is the department able to focus its resources on the highest priorities, given myriad legal agreements with state and federal regulators at individual sites — Hanford included.

In a second report in August 2015, CRESP said that the extent to which the clean-up programme is based on actual risk remains “unclear”. The report recommended that Congress establish an inter¬agency task force, with the participation of independent experts, to advise the department on clean-up activities and to help navigate legal and regulatory issues. Controversially, CRESP also recommended the creation of an alternative dispute-resolution process to replace the court-approved agreements that govern individual sites.

Objections to that report were raised by the governor and attorney general of Washington state, which has one such agreement at Hanford. This is testimony to the complexity of the problem. Still, the energy department would benefit from a broader reassessment of its clean-up mission — and a regular injection of unbiased risk analysis. The carriages in the Hanford tunnels are not going anywhere soon. But it should be science that dictates their timetable.

More than six years after the devastating meltdown of Japan’s Fukushima Daiichi power plant, the country powered up another nuclear reactor. Operators at Kansai Electric Power (KEPCO) restarted the No. 4 reactor at the Takahama nuclear plant Wednesday, following a court ruling in March approving the decision.

The Takahama plant, located in Fukui Prefecture, sits about 215 miles west of Tokyo. An appeals court in Osaka ruled in March that the company could restart two of the four reactors at the plant.

“We will carefully continue our work with discipline and regard safety as the priority,” Shigeki Iwane, KEPCO’s president, said in a statement

Your mobile phone can reveal whether you have been exposed to radiationDate: May 24, 2017Source: Lund University

In accidents or terror attacks which are suspected to involve radioactive substances, it can be difficult to determine whether people nearby have been exposed to radiation. But by analysing mobile phones and other objects which come in close contact with the body, it is possible to retrieve important information on radiation exposure. This has been shown by a new thesis from Lund University in Sweden.

The nuclear power plant disasters in Chernobyl and Fukushima are two examples of accidents which have exposed the population to ionising radiation. Many people fear that, for example, dirty bombs will be used in future terror attacks.

"Being able to quickly determine whether someone has been exposed to radiation is a major advantage. In case of a nuclear power plant disaster, many people are worried, even when only a small number of people have been exposed to harmful levels of radiation," explains Therése Geber-Bergstrand, medical physicist and doctoral student at Lund University.

Providing information several years after an accidentTogether with her colleagues, Therése Geber-Bergstrand examined a number of objects or materials that come in close contact with the body and which have the potential of providing information on whether the carrier has been exposed to radiation. Among the objects examined were:• mobile phones• teeth and dental fillings• drying agents (found in, for example, small pouches in new brief cases and purses)

The study showed that several of the materials contained very promising properties, not least mobile phones. They contain resistors made from aluminium oxide, which can provide information about radiation as late as six years after the time of exposure. During analysis, the phone is dismantled and the resistor is subsequently examined using a light-sensitive measuring technique, known as optically stimulated luminescence (OSL).

"The results from the mobile phones were very promising. Even though further studies are required, the phones can be used right away. We have an agreement with the Swedish Radiation Safety Authority about analysing a number of mobile phones in our emergency preparedness lab when needed," says Therése Geber-Bergstrand.

Analyses of mobile phones and of other tested objects can also be performed on a large scale and relatively quickly. It may be possible to receive a test result within one or two hours, compared to the couple of days it can take to receive tests results from a medical exam. According to Therése Geber-Bergstrand, an initial check of the mobile phone can therefore be a valuable tool for determining who needs to undergo more time-consuming and resource-intensive tests.Salt capsules could complement dosemetersIn her thesis, she also continued to develop the research group's previous findings with regard to the use of table salt as a cheap and effective indicator of ionising radiation. Her results confirm the benefits of the salt. In the event of a major accident involving radioactive substances, it could therefore be an option to supply some of the emergency staff with special salt capsules as an effective and cheap alternative to dosemeters.________________________________________Story Source:Materials provided by Lund University.https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/05/170524140324.htm

Just under two weeks since the emergency at the Hanford nuclear facility in Washington state (following a tunnel collapse), NBC's local affiliate King5 reports Hanford’s owner, The U.S. Department of Energy, is scrambling to deal with a second emergency - signs have emerged that a massive underground double shell nuclear waste holding tank may be leaking.

Governor Jay Inslee called on the federal government to investigate after the contamination was discovered."This comes on the heels of last week's tunnel collapse. It is another urgent reminder that Congress needs to act, and they need to act quickly."

“The May 9th incident should serve as an urgent reminder of the challenges in cleaning up the Hanford site that require a rededication of attention and resources in order to ensure progress continues moving forward,” the governors said in their letter to the Republican president.

“The longer it takes to clean up the facilities and structures that store mixed chemical and radioactive waste, the farther and farther they get past their useful lives - causing degradation and more risk of failing.”

SHALOM...Z

Logged

GREAT SPIRITS ALWAYS ENCOUNTER THE MOST VIOLENT OPPOSITION FROM MEDIOCRE MINDS E=MC2